One of the most troubling
crises confronting the world today is that the U.S. Executive Branch 
controlling the most fearsome arsenal in history  has largely detached
itself from reality and faces no counterforce in Washington capable of
bringing it back down to earth.

In that sense, George W. Bushs
second Inaugural Address on Jan. 20 stood out as a defining moment. Bush wrapped
a grim record of presidential abuses  an unprovoked invasion, extraordinary
secrecy, tolerance of torture and indefinite imprisonments without trial  in
the noble cloak of freedom and liberty, words he uttered 27 and 15 times
respectively, as if words can amend truth.

Bushs speech also ignored the
fact that he and his supporters have consistently harassed and denigrated
dissidents at home, often by tarring them as disloyal or crazy. Remember, for
instance, the
vicious attacks from the Right against former Vice President Al Gore
in fall 2002 when he questioned the justification for rushing to war with Iraq.

This hostility toward dissent has
continued to the present as some conservative pundits, such as the Washington
Times Tony Blankley, are suggesting that journalist Seymour Hersh be
investigated for espionage for writing an article in the New Yorker about the
Bush administrations secret military operations in Iran and elsewhere.

Federal prosecutors should
review the information disclosed by Mr. Hersh to determine whether or not his
conduct falls within the proscribed conduct of the [espionage] statute,
Blankley wrote. [Washington Times, Jan. 19, 2005]

Ironically, Blankley is the
editorial page editor for a newspaper financed by South Korean theocrat Sun
Myung Moon, who has vowed to eradicate American democracy and who was identified
by a congressional probe in the late 1970s as an operative for the South Korean
intelligence agency. [For details on Moons background and his relationship with
the Bush family, see Robert Parrys Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq.]

Professed Love

George W. Bushs
professed love for democratic principles also appears to be stronger
when hes lecturing other countries abstractly rather than when hes
actually practicing the civics lessons at home. Four days after what he called
his Inaugural freedom speech, there was an ill-timed reminder of Bushs
personal double standards about democracy.

The Washington Posts Al Kamen
updated the political success stories that have followed the Republican
activists who served as Bushs street thugs during the Florida recount battle of
four years ago. On Nov. 22, 2000, in what became known as the Brooks Brothers
Riot  named for the preppie clothing of the rioters  the Bush operatives
stormed Miamis polling headquarters, pounded on doors and roughed up Democrats,
leading city officials to abandon the counting of more than 10,000 ballots.

Though supposedly a protest by
local citizens outraged over how the recount was being conducted, many of the
participants were identified in a photo as Republican congressional staffers and
Bush campaign workers who had been sent in to disrupt the vote counts. After the
riot, the Bush campaign threw a celebratory party that featured crooner Wayne
Newton singing Danke Schoen. The rioters also got a personal thank-you call
from George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. [For details, see Consortiumnews.coms Bushs
Conspiracy to Riot.]

Some of those pictured [in the
riot photo] have gone on to other things, including stints at the White House,
Kamen wrote. For example, Matt Schlapp, , a former House aide and then a Bush
campaign aide, has risen to be White House political director. [Washington
Post, Jan. 24, 2005]

Though Bushs disruptive tactics
in November 2000 delayed or obstructed local recounts, the Florida state Supreme
Court ordered a statewide recount in early December. But Bush did not sit back
and meekly accept the will of the voters. Instead, he sent his lawyers to the
U.S. Supreme Court where he got five Republican allies to block the recount and
hand him the presidency.

An unofficial recount, later done
by news organizations, found that if all legal votes had been counted in
Florida, Al Gore  not George W. Bush  would have become President of the
United States. [For details, see Consortiumnews.coms So
Bush Did Steal the White House.]

More Bare Knuckles

In Campaign 2004, Bush again
demonstrated the Bush familys bare-knuckled approach to politics.

As in other George Bush campaigns
 by both father and son  there was the usual litany of dirty tricks and
front-group smear operations, this time, including a well-coordinated assault on
John Kerrys Vietnam War heroism. [For details, see Consortiumnews.coms Reality
on the Ballot and Bushes
Play the Traitor Card.]

Other Bush campaign tactics were
designed to suppress the Democratic vote, especially in African-American
neighborhoods, by adopting aggressive ballot security procedures and through
the creation of long voting lines.

So, while many Republican
strongholds in the key state of Ohio had lots of voting machines and only brief
waits, many Democratic-leaning precincts were shorted on voting machines causing
delays that stretched on for hours. Many time-pressed voters had to give up
because of child-care demands at home or the need to get to work.

Defeated candidate Kerry said the tactics suppressed the votes of
thousands of Americans. Voting machines were distributed in uneven ways,
Kerry said on Jan. 18. In Democratic districts, it took people four, five, 11
hours to vote, while Republicans (went) through in 10 minutes. [For more on the
voting irregularities and the post-election battle, see Consortiumnews.coms Bushs
Unaccountability Moment.]

Instead of joining Kerry in
expressing concerns about this disenfranchisement of voters, Bush has remained
silent while his supporters have denounced challenges to voting irregularities
as conspiracy theories. In Ohio, Republican Attorney General James Petro has
even sought sanctions against four Election Protection attorneys who filed a
lawsuit seeking an investigation of the Ohio balloting.

On Jan. 18, Attorney General
Petro filed a complaint with the Ohio Supreme Court calling the election
challenges frivolous and demanding fines and other court sanctions against
lawyers Robert Fitrakis, Susan Truitt, Cliff Arnebeck and Peter Peckarsky.
Lawyer Arnebeck responded that the real abuse of process came from Petro and
Republican Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell, who have refused to cooperate
with the investigation into Election Day problems.

They are just beside themselves
because they cannot withstand cross examination, Arnebeck said, according to
the
Columbus Free Press.

Rep. John Conyers, the ranking
Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, wrote to Petro, protesting the Ohio
attorney generals attempt to punish the four lawyers.

One would be hard pressed to see
how the legal challenges brought under the Ohio election challenge statute were
frivolous, Conyers wrote. It is widely known that the Ohio presidential
election was literally riddled with irregularities and improprieties, many of
which are set forth in the 102-page
report issued by the House Judiciary Committee Democratic staff.

Fawning Commentary

Despite this old and new history
of Bushs highhanded approach toward democracy, newspaper and TV commentators
largely accepted Bushs Inaugural declarations about freedom and liberty at
face value.

Though some columnists have
questioned the feasibility of Bushs ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our
world, almost no one in Washington has questioned Bushs sincerity. The idea
that Bush might be a hypocrite  hiding an autocratic reality under the cover of
democratic rhetoric  is presumably beyond the bounds of the capitals
conventional wisdom.

The Washington Posts David S.
Broder, known as the dean of the national press corps, wrote a glowing tribute
to Bushs eloquent speech, which Broder cited as proof that Bush was holding
steadfast to his goal of achieving the worldwide realization of the ideals of
freedom and democracy. [Washington Post, Jan. 21, 2005]

Another Post columnist E.J.
Dionne Jr. chimed in that every American will cheer the presidents repeated
reference to the U.S. obligation to hold high the torch of freedom. Dionne, a
supposed liberal, gushed further, I love what the president said about our
obligation to dissidents around the world.

But Dionne expressed some
reservations about whether the president has been candid about the costs of his
all-embracing vision, about how to pay for it and raise the troops to fight it.
He also wondered how consistently we will stand up for embattled democratic
reformers in China, Russia and Saudi Arabia. [Washington Post, Jan. 21, 2005]

In a follow-up column four days
later, Dionne added to these mild criticisms by noting that White House aides
and Bushs father, former President George H.W. Bush, had explained that the
freedom speech didnt signal any real change in U.S. policies.

People want to read a lot into
it  that this means new aggression or newly asserted military forces, the
elder George Bush told reporters. Thats not what the speech is about. Its
about freedom.

In other words, the speech was
about words, not reality.

But like other Washington
commentators, Dionne still didnt question George W. Bushs honesty, only his
tactics. The columnist termed this Bush freedom shuffle a terrible mistake
that might engender more cynicism that if it spreads further through the Muslim
world, could doom the very best aspirations of Bushs policy. [Washington Post,
Jan. 25, 2005]

Autocratic Friends

Left out of these formulations
are always the core questions about what freedom, liberty and democracy
mean to the Bushes and their political allies overseas.

The evidence is overwhelming that
the Bush familys record is almost never one of standing tall for human rights
and in defense of democratic freedoms in other countries. Rather, the family has
a long history of coddling autocrats and dictators, even those who have engaged
in political murders, torture and international terrorism.

Throughout his long political
career, George H.W. Bush routinely sided with tyrants, such as Chilean dictator
Augusto Pinochet whose government not only repressed dissidents inside Chile but
sent death squads into Europe and even to Washington to hunt down and kill
political adversaries.

For instance, in September 1976,
while the senior George Bush was CIA director, Pinochets assassins audaciously
traveled to Washington and blew up a car carrying Chiles former foreign
minister Orlando Letelier. Letelier and Ronni Moffitt, an American co-worker
riding in the car, were killed.

Though possessing information
implicating Pinochets dictatorship in the terrorist attack, Bushs CIA covered
for Chiles secret services by denying publicly that the Pinochet regime was
responsible and pointing investigators off in false directions. Despite the
CIAs misleading statements, the FBI eventually did break the case, though
Pinochet and his top assistants were never held accountable. [For details, see
Parrys
Secrecy & Privilege.]

Even two decades later, when
Pinochet was detained in London facing an extradition request from a Spanish
prosecutor investigating the murder of Spanish citizens in Chile, the elder
George Bush was still fronting for his old friend. Bush wrote a letter to
British authorities urging them to ignore the Spanish extradition request.
Following Bushs intervention, Pinochet was allowed to fly back to Chile, rather
than face human rights charges in Spain.

Terror War

The younger George Bush has
displayed a similar selective judgment in dealing with foreign dictators.

While justifying the invasion of
Iraq in the name of freedom
 after earlier claims about weapons of mass destruction proved bogus  Bush has
based many of his military operations in Persian Gulf sheikhdoms that offer few
or no democratic rights to their citizens. Some allies in Bushs war on
terror, such as Uzbekistan, repress their own people as ruthlessly as Saddam
Hussein did in Iraq. [See Consortiumnews.coms Bush
& Democracy Hypocrisy.]

For good reason, this perceived
Bush hypocrisy has undercut U.S. strategies for winning hearts and minds in
the Islamic world. Bushs mistaken interpretation of al-Qaedas motives for
waging war  as a hatred for American freedom and a desire to destroy U.S.
democracy  further hampers a coherent strategy for prevailing in the Middle
East.

As former CIA analyst Michael
Scheuer points out in his 2004 book, Imperial Hubris, Islamic militants
view their attacks against U.S. targets, including the terror strikes on the
World Trade Center, as a defensive jihad to protect what they view as
longstanding U.S. assaults on their land and on their people.

Their goal is not to wipe out
our secular democracy, but to deter us by military means from attacking the
things they love, including their religion and their territory, Scheuer wrote.
Bin Laden et al are not eternal warriors; there is no evidence they are
fighting for fightings sake.

Rather, Scheuer wrote, the
resistance to the United States is part of what many
Muslims view as a principled struggle against a foreign power that has sought to
re-impose a form of colonialism on the Arab world. In that sense, al-Qaeda's
attacks are reprehensible but rational, the former CIA analyst on the Middle
East argued.

According to Scheuer, U.S.
policies over the past half century have moved America from being the
much-admired champion of liberty and self-government to the hated and feared
advocate of a new imperial order, one that has much the same characteristics as
nineteenth-century European imperialism: military garrisons; economic
penetration and control; support for leaders, no matter how brutal and
undemocratic, as long as they obey the imperial power; and the exploitation and
depletion of natural resources.

Scheuer, who wrote Imperial
Hubris under the byline Anonymous because he was in the CIA at the time,
also views Bushs invasion of Iraq as counter-productive because it confirmed
many Islamic suspicions about the United States and its motives.

Still, even with the Iraq policy
spinning out of control and Islamic hatred of the United States soaring, Bush
and much of the Washington commentariat seem content to continue their long bath
in the warm rhetoric of freedom and liberty. They are doing so although the
continued false defining of the challenges ahead guarantee more devastation for
U.S. soldiers and the people of the Middle East.

The other option would be to take
a hard look at longstanding U.S. policies in that region, at legitimate Arab
grievances against Washington, and at the dangers caused by continued dependence
on Middle East oil. That would undoubtedly cause much political pain and
confront the nation with some wrenching choices. It is also virtually certain
not to happen, at least in the foreseeable future.

Perhaps the one freedom most
fundamental to Bush and his many admiring columnists is the freedom from
reality.

Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra
stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His new book, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from
Watergate to Iraq, can be ordered at
secrecyandprivilege.com. It's also available at
Amazon.com, as is his 1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine,
the Press & 'Project Truth.'